A.K.ANNAMALAI, J. - (1.) Unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.
(2.) The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party praying for the direction for the opposite party to pay a workshop bill of Rs.93,410/- with 12% interest from 31.12.02 from till the date of payment, to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony loss of reputation and loss of business and to pay the cost.
(3.) The brief details of the complainant case as per the complaint is as follows :- The complainant owns a Maruthi Omni van bearing Regn.No.TN 27 C 5850 and he insured the vehicle with the opposite party covering the period from 9.10.01 to 8.10.02. On 8.9.2002 at about 10.30 a.m the complainants vehicle met with an accident near Menganallam Palyaam in Erode. The complainant intimated the accident to the opposite party and the opposite party has sent his surveyor and after the spot inspection and submitted the surveyors report. Based on the report the opposite party directed the complainant to sent the vehicle to the authorized dealer to get detailed invoice for spare parts, replacement and labour charges. Thereafter the complainant submitted claim with necessary documents on 17.9.2002. Afterdue verification the opposite party accepted of the claim of the complainant and engaged their own surveyor to assess the actual damages and the vehicle was dismantled in presence of the surveyor to study the detailed inner damage. The complainant shifted the vehicle to Sri Saradhambal Automobiles (P) Ltd., Coimbatore who is the authorized dealer for Maruthi Udyog Ltd., and assessed the damages on 31.12.02 for Rs.93,410/-. Without any reason and without any intimation the opposite party delayed the payment to settle the repair charges. The complainant paid the entire bill amount of Rs.93,410/- and released the vehicle from the workshop. The complainant submitted the original bill to the opposite parties and asked the opposite party to reimburse the bill, whereas after the lapse of 5 months opposite party not chosen to honour the claim. Hence a legal notice issued to the opposite party. But the claim was repudiated by stating that the vehicle was fitted with LPG Kit at the time of accident. If it is not a real fact what prevented the opposite party to repudiate the claim immediately after preliminary spot survey. At the time of accident the vehicle was running on petrol and not LPG Cylinder or kit was fitted in the vehicle. Due to the deficiency and improper service the opposite party kept nearly 8 months silence and simply repudiated the claim without giving any opportunity to the complainant. Hence there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint is filed.;